關注香港審查制度

致「香港圖書館協會」及「香港學校圖書館主任協會」的公開信

(英文 / 中文)

英文﹕致香港圖書館協會

(鳴謝小油及邦兄協助校對潤飾)

Mr. Michael Robinson

President

Hong Kong Library Association

P.O. Box 10095

General Post Office

Hong Kong, China

26th May, 2007

Dear Mr. Robinson,

The censorship policy in Hong Kong

I am writing to urge Hong Kong Library Association (HKLA)’s concern over the censorship policy in Hong Kong. You and your council members must have heard of the controversy about the Chinese University Student Press (CUSP) “indecent material” case. Here, however, I am not going to comment on the appropriateness of CUSP’s reaction to such sensitive issue.

What I find alarming and that all librarians must concern is the ridiculous censorship policy. The Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority (TELA) selectively picks out cases for submission to the Obscene Articles Tribunal (OAT) without the need to provide any proper reasons (see http://www.zonaeuropa.com/200705.brief.htm), for example:

1. TELA ignores the erotic scenes in classic literature and newspapers, and submitted CUSP’s sex column to OAT;

2. It chose not to submit the Bible because it is a “historical article”, and the pornography in Han dynasty is deemed “indecent”, even though it is even more ancient than the Bible.

3. It could ignore more than 2000 complaints about Bible, but accepts 2 complaints about Ming Pao’s citation of CUSP.

(I am not saying, nor I am giving you the impression, that the Bible is “indecent”, I am only referring to TELA’s nonsense decision.)

4. It so happened in 1995 the sculpture “New Man” by Elisabeth Frink was graded Class II “indecent”

Furthermore, the determination of Ming Pao’s citation of CUSP (13th May) as indecent material imposes a crisis on all librarians. Ming Pao is commonly accepted as “educational” and is subscribed by almost all libraries in Hong Kong. If OAT decides the citation of CUSP incident by Ming Pao “indecent”, all librarians in Hong Kong would become criminals.

According to the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance (Chapter 390), distributing indecent materials to a person under 18 is a criminal offence, and is liable to a fine of $400000 and imprisonment of 12 months on first conviction.

If Ming Pao contains indecent material, all libraries providing Ming Pao (13th May issue) to the teenagers are committing crime, and all librarians are criminals. Isn’t it ridiculous?!

The main problem is the doubtful censorship policy and a tribunal that does not really representing “the standards of morality, decency and propriety that are generally accepted by reasonable members of the community” (http://www.judiciary.gov.hk/en/crt_services/pphlt/html/oat.htm).

Unlike the jury that is randomly selected from the public, the adjudicators of tribunal actually volunteer themselves to join. We could arguably believe that, the people who wish to become adjudicators are more concerned and alarmed to “pornography” than those who do not. Therefore, this group of adjudicators may well be biased and do not represent the standard of commons.

This problem was further discussed by Leung Man Tao’s article on Ming Pao, 24th May. By his view, the censorship system is “hijacked” by some minority groups, who impose their morals on the public through the official channels provided by the government.

The HKLA’s Code of Ethics states we should uphold uncensored flow of information, protect and promote the rights of every user to have unhindered and equal access to information. As a leading professional association, the American Library Association Council also proclaimed a “Library Bill of Rights”, which states, “libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment”. As the protector of human culture, librarian must keep an uncensored information flow. When the censorship policy interferes with our duty, we should stand out and ask for reformation.

As a professional body representing the librarians in Hong Kong, the HKLA, I hope, will show its concern over the current censorship policy, and urge the government to review, as like what it did during the Article 23 legislation row.

Thank for your consideration.

I could be contacted by andrewffy@yahoo.com.hk

Yours sincerely,

Fong Fu Yun, Andrew

中文﹕致香港學校圖書館主任協會

陸學熙會長台鑑﹕

關注香港現行審查制度事宜

素仰香港學校圖書館主任協會為業界代表組織，在爭取政策及待遇方面，對圖書館老師貢獻良多。

本人冒昧來函，實為促請 貴會對於香港現行審查制度之問題，向政府及大眾表達關注。

相信 閣下與其他幹事，對於近日來《中大學生報》情色版被裁定「不雅」所引起之爭議，應有所聞。可是，本函無意討論學生報處理敏感話題方面，手法是否恰當。

本人認為，所有圖書館同工都應該警惕的，是香港的審查制度大有問題。影視及娛樂事務處(影視處)向淫褻及不雅物品審裁處(淫審處)呈交物品，採取選擇性執法，而無須提供合理原因。姑舉數例﹕

1. 影視處把學生報情色版呈交淫審處，但對於文學作品和報章的色情內容，卻鮮有理會。

2. 處方聲稱，《聖經》乃「歷史文獻」而無須送檢，但歷史更悠久的漢代春宮圖，卻被送檢而裁定為「不雅」。

3. 處方只收到兩宗對《明報》轉載學生報問卷的投訴就予以送檢，但對於《聖經》超過二千宗投訴卻紋風不動。

(當然，本人並不認為《聖經》不雅，亦不希望任何人誤會我的意思。舉聖經作例，只為反映影視處的決定太任意，毫無章法道理可言。)

4. 同樣地，1995年 Elisabeth Frink 的作品「新人」，曾被裁定為「二級不雅」物品。

更有甚者，把《明報》轉載學生報問卷(五月十三日)裁定為「不雅」，實為所有圖書館員帶來危機。《明報》素來被認同為「具教育性」之報章，香港幾乎所有圖書館均有訂閱。如果淫審處把轉載學生報問卷的《明報》評為「不雅」，則香港所有圖書館主任都有變成罪犯之嫌。

根據《淫褻及不雅物品管制條例》(香港法例第390章)，向十八歲以下之青少年發放不雅物品屬刑事罪行，初犯可被罰款四十萬及入獄十二個月。

如果《明報》也算是不雅物品，那麼所有向青少年提供五月十三日《明報》的圖書館都已經犯法，而所有圖書館主任都成為罪犯。那不是很難以置信嗎﹖

現時最大的問題，是審查標準令人質疑，而淫審處亦無法代表「社會上合理的人普遍接受的道德、禮儀及言行標準」(見http://www.judiciary.gov.hk/tc/crt_services/pphlt/html/oat.htm)。

跟一般從公眾中隨機抽選的陪審團不同，淫審處的審裁員其實是自行報名參與的。我們有合理理由相信，有意報名當審裁員的人，肯定比沒報名的人更關注「色情」議題。所以，審裁員群體很可能是「有偏」(biased)的，不可能真正反映一般大眾的標準。

梁文道先生在五月廿四日《明報》的文章中有更詳細的討論(見http://inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=221550&group_id=104)，他認為審查制度已經被某些少數人士所「劫持」，利用政府公權力強迫市民接受他們的道德標準。

香港圖書館協會的專業守則(HKLA's Code of Ethics)明言，我們要維護查詢自由和不經審查的資訊流通，而保護及促進所有用者不受阻礙、平等接觸資訊之權利。

作為業界領導組織，美國圖書館學會(ALA)亦在「圖書館權利法案」(Library Bill of Rights)中規定﹕「圖書館應該挑戰一切審查制度，以完成提供資訊與啟蒙之使命」。

身為人類文明的保護者，圖書館員應該維護資訊自由不受審查阻礙。如果審查制度與吾等之職責有所衝突，吾等應當挺身而出，要求改正。

作為代表學校圖書館主任的專業團體，本人謹希望香港圖書館主任協會向公眾表達對現行審查制度的憂慮，並要求政府檢討有關政策。就正如圖書館界在基本法廿三條立法爭議時所做的一樣。

在此感謝 閣下垂注。如有需要，可以本人電郵 andrewffy@yahoo.com.hk 聯絡。

順祝 教安

兼祝 貴會工作順利

學生、同工

方富潤敬上

二零零七年五月二十七日